Ben Swann Truth in Media: More Americans "Rethinking" 9/11?

Tuesday, December 24, 2013

Tell the NY TImes:The Evidence Isn't Hard to Find...If You Just Look

Yesterday
New York Times Chief Washington Correspondent was the
guest on CSPAN’s Washington Journal, where he had this to say about :

“We
have not found any evidence so far – that doesn’t mean there’s none
there – but we’ve not found any evidence so far to suggest that the
building collapses were caused by anything other than the two airplanes
that flew into them.”

Sanger
was responding to a question from a caller who wanted to know why,
despite the massive billboard standing right outside the New York Times
Building, the paper of record had failed to “fairly and objectively
cover this crucial issue.”

Now
with a senior representative of the New York Times on the record
saying, “We’ve not found any evidence so far,” it is time to let Sanger
and the editors know that the evidence is there. All they need to do is look and they’ll easily find it. Contact the NY Times Today!

Contact the NY Times Today

Last
week over 1,000 people contacted the BBC in response to our action
alert regarding the BBC’s one-sided article on the ReThink911 campaign.
Let’s surpass that level of support today. Please take 2 minutes right
now to contact David Sanger and the NY Times editors. Just copy-paste
the letter below, or write your own. Please be sure to Bcc us at
AE911Truth so that we can keep a count of how many emails are sent.

On
Sunday, December 23, 2013, you, Mr. Sanger, told a caller on CSPAN’s
Washington Journal that the New York Times had not found any evidence so
far to suggest that the collapse of WTC Building 7 was caused by
anything other than an indirect result of the airplanes flying into the
Twin Towers. I am writing to tell you that the evidence is indeed there,
and I urge you to look into it. 2,100 architects and engineers have
signed a petition at AE911Truth.org calling for a new investigation
based on this evidence. The following points are just a few from among
the growing body of evidence that overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that Building 7 came down by controlled demolition.

Building 7 accelerated downward at absolute free-fall for the first few seconds of its 7-second symmetrical collapse.

However,
a building cannot undergo free-fall if it is meeting any resistance
from any of the columns below it, as any resistance would slow the
building’s descent.

Therefore, the lower section of the building could not have been “crushed” by the upper freely falling section.

The
destruction of at least 8 stories of the lower section of the building
had to have been accomplished by other means, i.e. explosives or
incendiaries, to allow the upper section of the building to fall through
it in free-fall. Learn more about the free-fall of Building 7.

There is clear evidence of melted steel at Building 7, first reported on by the NY Times, and incendiaries in numerous dust samples from Ground Zero.

As
you well understand, the implications of the controlled demolition of
Building 7 are extraordinary, since it is integral to the 9/11 events,
and therefore the question of what happened to Building 7 is of the
greatest importance. I thank you in advance for taking the time to
seriously examine this crucial issue.

In an attempt to reconcile the thermite evidence with the official story, debunker Frank Greening once proposed that aluminium from the planes reacted with rust on the steel structures, "inducing violent thermite explosions", and that this "repeated in a rapidly accelerating, and increasingly violent cascade of destruction",
resulting in the global collapse of the towers. In other words, he
proposed that the twin towers were destroyed by thermite ... naturally!

Dr.
Greening is, I believe, a chemist so it is only fair to look at this
field of study first of all. One of his most well known arguments is
that there could have been natural thermite reactions within the tower
fires. He lists those ingredients which are necessary for this natural
thermite and shows that all of these ingredients were present, so his
argument follows that a natural thermite reaction could have taken
place. Now I will never claim to be good at chemistry but I know that if
I leave margarine, flour, sugar and fruit in a cupboard, when I next
open the cupboard I will not find a fruit crumble. Some mechanism is
required to convert the ingredients. Similarly, if I take these same
ingredients, set them alight and throw them out the window, I still will
not get my fruit crumble. The mechanism must have some order. Dr.
Greening fails to provide any explanation or narrative for these
required mechanisms but rather relies on simply ticking off the
ingredients and falling back on the unfailing support of his accolytes.
It came as an enormous surprise to me that some educated people have
been taken in by this, most notably and recently was Manuel Garcia, in
his Counterpunch article. What we are being asked to swallow in place of
our absent fruit crumble, is that the tonnes of aluminium aircraft
parts were powderised upon impact, thoroughly mixed with tonnes of rust
from the towers steel superstructure in exactly the required proportion
to form tonnes of thermite, which then hung around for about an hour
before distributing itself to key structural points throughout the
tower, then igniting in a complex sequence to cause the towers'
collapse. It is granted that a good imagination is a requirement for a
good scientist, but this just abuses the privilege. Perhaps the name for
this natural thermite should instead be intelligent thermite, or
intelligent malevolent thermite.

As both a 9/11 truther and a Darwinism heretic,
I find the fruit crumble analogy and 'intelligent malevolent thermite'
designation doubly scrumptious. It is hard to believe anyone with the
slightest semblance of rationality, never mind a professional chemist,
would seriously suggest such a thing, but what do you expect from
someone who denies Newton's third law?!

"His research was hardly shocking. It has been backed up by plenty of
other experts, including those at Popular Mechanics who published a special report called Debunking the 9/11 Myths." - BBC

Debunking the REAL 9/11 Myths: Why Popular Mechanics Can't Face Up to Reality

I am happy to announce that my latest article is finally available online! My newest work, titled Debunking the REAL 9/11 Myths: Why Popular Mechanics Can't Face Up to Reality,
is a point-by-point refutation of Popular Mechanics' weak arguments
regarding the controlled demolition of the three WTC buildings. If you
thought Popular Mechanics' updated 2011 book refuted the so-called
"conspiracy theories" about 9/11, think again.

Editor’s note: This is Part 10 of 10 (see Part 9),
the conclusion of an extensive report by 9/11 researcher Adam Taylor
that exposes the fallacies and flaws in the arguments made by the
writers and editors of Popular Mechanics (PM) in the latest edition of
Debunking 9/11 Myths. We encourage you to submit your own reviews of the book at Amazon.com and other places where it is sold. (Quotes from PM are shown in red and with page numbers.)

"Jonathan Kay, an editor at the National Post and author of Among the
Truthers, said 9/11 conspiracy theories resonate for a reason." - BBC

ReThink911 Keeps Building 7 in the Headlines

Let the BBC Editor Know the Public Doesn’t Buy Their One-Sided Coverage

Plus: NY Times Billboard Continues through December!

Yesterday the BBC published an article about the ongoing ReThink911 ad campaign in Ottawa. Featured on the BBC’s News homepage still today, the article has been seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

This
piece marks the fifth mainstream news article about ReThink911’s Ottawa
campaign since the announcement of the campaign on November 20. But
unlike its Canadian counterparts, the BBC has a tendency for falseness
and one-sidedness rivaled only by the likes of Fox News.

Tell the BBC Editor Their Reporting Is a Journalistic Disgrace

Please
take 2 minutes right now to let the Editor of the BBC’s North America
edition know how you feel about their reporting. Just copy-paste the
letter below, or write your own. Please be sure to Bcc us at AE911Truth
so that we can keep a count of how many emails are sent.

The
BBC’s article on the ReThink911 ad campaign in Ottawa is a journalistic
disgrace. The number of false claims and one-sided maneuvers is simply
astounding.

Most
disturbing is how the article falsely labeled Jonathan Kay and Popular
Mechanics “experts,” while neglecting to quote a single one of the 2,100
engineering and architecture experts who are so critical of the
official account that they are demanding a new World Trade Center
investigation. In addition, the article provides links to every source
it references that supports the official account of 9/11, but not a
single link to a source critiquing the official account.

With
regard to the poll commissioned by ReThink911 and conducted by the
polling firm YouGov, the article falsely, groundlessly calls it
“unscientific,” and then conveniently neglects to embed or link to the
30-second video shown to the poll respondents. It seems rather obvious
the video would be of interest to your readers.

The
article disrespectfully caricatures 9/11 activists by likening the
group in Hamilton, Ontario to terrorists belonging to a “cell,” and the
article does not mention even once the name of the ad campaign – or its
website ReThink911.org.

If
your goal was to mislead the public about the very serious pursuit of
truth regarding the events of 9/11, congratulations, I would say you
succeeded admirably – except I think most people can see through this
atrocious, unabashedly one-sided “reporting.”

If
you care at all about preserving the BBC’s journalistic integrity, I
would suggest you make up for this horrible disservice to the public
with an article that gives equal and unbiased attention to the more than
2,100 architects and engineers calling for a new investigation into the
destruction of Building 7.

Sincerely,

[Your Name]

NY Times Billboard to Continue through December

Finally,
we are thrilled to inform you that we have extended our NY Times
billboard through the end of December for an absolutely rock bottom
price. Our audacious billboard continues to greet reporters and editors
on the way to work everyday. Soon we will be announcing new actions to
hold the NY Times accountable for its lack of coverage of Building 7.
Stay tuned!

9/11 Best Evidence Playlist by ReThink911.org

Edited from the documentary 9/11 Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out from Architects & Engineers For 9/11 Truth, in addition to an original clip on WTC 7 Foreknowledge with Dr. Graeme MacQueen, Co-Editor of Journal of 9/11 Studies.